M4GW
2009-11-24 en
Hide The Decline - Climategate
A parody of "Draggin the Line" by Tommy James and the Shondells.
Which I think is where the term "Treehugger" comes from "Huggin a
tree when you get near it" was the original lyric which I
replaced with "you should have chopped more trees instead of hugging
them"

The Telegraph
2009-11-20 en
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic
Global Warming'?Manipulation of evidence:
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick
of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years
(ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's
to hide the decline.Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of
warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.
The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming:
but the data are surely wrong.
Our observing system is inadequate.Suppression of evidence:Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?
I don't have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:
Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting,
I'll be tempted to beat the crap out of him.
Very tempted.Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm
Period (MWP):
... Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen
NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available
nearly 2K back-I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather
than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/
regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to
"contain" the putative "MWP",
even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available
that far back.....

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications
discussinghow best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review
process.
How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone
who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do
not have a scrap of authority.
"This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not
publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a
solution to that-take over a journal! So what do we do about this?
I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research"
as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal.
Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research
community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in,
this journal.
We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more
reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.
What do others think?""I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm
having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this
troublesome editor."
"It results from this journal having a number of editors.
The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ.
He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past.
I've had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got
nowhere.
Another thing to discuss in Nice !"

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September - I wrote the story
up here as "How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie"
- Hadley CRU's researchers were exposed as having
"cherry-picked" data in order to support
their untrue claim that global temperatures
had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time
in the last millenium.
Hadley CRU was also the organisation which -
in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international
scientific community - spent years withholding data
from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters
because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a
government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude.
Its HadCrut record is one
of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the
IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin
of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course.
In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical
(and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream
Media.
And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by
eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign
by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and
exploding because kind of, like, man, that's sort of what happens
whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant
to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher
taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against
Al Gore's Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called
"sceptical" view is now also the majority view.

Unfortunately, we've a long, long way to go before the public mood
(and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers.
There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose
either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a
bitter fight.

But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it's a blow to the AGW lobby's
credibility which is never likely to recover.

corbettreport
2009-11-21 en
Climate Change Bombshell: Dr. Tim Ball on the hacked CRU emails
Retired climatologist Dr. Tim Ball joins us to discuss the
significance of the recently leaked emails and documents from the
Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University which expose deceit,
duplicity and collusion between climate researchers to maintain the
fraud of the manmade global warming theory.
These emails reveal stunning behind-the-scenes details about how this
fraud has been developed and perpetuated, and Dr. Ball shares his
insights on what they show.

Simon Cox on the row after emails were taken from a major climate
research centre (30 minutes)
Emails taken from the one of the world's major climate research
centres have been a boon for climate sceptics who claim manipulation of
the data, and a 'major blow' for green activists who are calling for
resignations and apologies.
Simon Cox looks at why a group of climate
scientists decided to play hardball against the sceptics, and, as
President Obama heads for the Copenhagen summit, what affect the row
could have on his climate change bill.

Pajamas Media / Christopher Monckton
2009-11-23 en
Viscount Monckton on Climategate: 'They Are Criminals'
This is what they did - these climate "scientists" on whose
unsupported word the world's classe politique proposes to set up
an unelected global government this December in Copenhagen,
with vast and unprecedented powers to control all formerly free
markets, to tax wealthy nations and all of their financial
transactions, to regulate the economic and environmental affairs
of all nations, and to confiscate and extinguish all patent and
intellectual property rights.

CRU Emails - search engine online

You can either search using the keyword search box above, or use the
links below to browse them 25 emails at a time.

In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy,
scientists at the United Kingdom's University of East Anglia
established the Climate Research Unit (CRU) to produce the world's
first comprehensive history of surface temperature.

It's known in the trade as the "Jones and Wigley" record for its
authors, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the primary
reference standard for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) until 2007.

Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies
at the University of Colorado, then requested the raw data from
Jones. Jones responded:

Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into
existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say
if all stations within a particular country or if all of an
individual record should be freely available.

Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not
able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the
station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues.

We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added
(i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.

It was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a
"discernible human influence on global climate."

All of this is much more than an academic spat.

It now appears likely that the U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade
climate legislation from its docket this fall - whereupon the
Obama Environmental Protection Agency is going to step in and
issue regulations on carbon-dioxide emissions. Unlike a law,
which can't be challenged on a scientific basis, a regulation can.

If there are no data, there's no science.

U.S. taxpayers deserve to know the answer to the question posed above.

The Met Office refuses to release data and methodology for
their HadCRUT global temperature dataset after being asked repeatedly.

Without the data and procedures there is no possibility of replication,
and without replication the Hadley climate data is not scientifically
valid.

This isn't just a skeptic issue, mind you, others have just a keen an
interest in proving the data.

When asked by Warwick Hughes for this data, Dr. Jones famously replied:

Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data.
We have 25 or so years invested in the work.
Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is
to try and find something wrong with it.

The fact that Hadley/Met Office repeatedly
refuses to disclose the data and methodology only deepens the
likelihood that there is something amiss and Hadley does not want
to be caught out on it.

Science and scientists should demand open access
to this data.
If GISS can do it, why not Hadley? They share much of the same data.

en
Before the post-1999 GISS adjustments to the Contiguous U.S. GISTEMP
data, the linear trend for the period of 1880 to 1999 was 0.035 deg
C/decade.
After the adjustments, the linear trend rose to 0.044 deg C/decade.

The NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS),
at Columbia University in New York City,
is a laboratory of the Earth Sciences Division of
NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
and a unit of the Columbia University Earth Institute.en
Homeen
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

en
One of the ironies of climate science is that perhaps the most
prominent opponent of satellite measurement of global temperature is
James Hansen, head of ... wait for it ... the Goddard Institute for Space
Studies at NASA!

As odd as it may seem, while we have updated
our technology for measuring atmospheric components like
CO2,
and have switched from surface measurement to satellites to
monitor sea ice, Hansen and his crew at the space agency are
fighting a rearguard action to defend surface temperature
measurement against the intrusion of space technology.

For those new to the topic, the ability to measure global
temperatures by satellite has only existed since about 1979,
and is admittedly still being refined and made more accurate.

However, satellite measurement has a number of substantial advantages
over surface temperature measurement:

It is immune to biases related to the positioning of surface
temperature stations, particularly the temperature creep over
time for stations in growing urban areas.

It is relatively immune to the problems of discontinuities as
surface temperature locations are moved.

It is much better geographic coverage, lacking the immense holes
that exist in the surface temperature network.

Anthony Watts has done a fabulous job of documenting the issues
with the surface temperature measurement network in the US, which
one must remember is the best in the world.

Four years ago, the people with The Right Stuff sent this letter to
NASA satellite deniers James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt, who are
completely destroying the agency's reputation with their junk science.

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard
Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven
remarks in public releases and websites.

We believe the claims by NASA
and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact
on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when
considering thousands of years of empirical data.

With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of
other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic
forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear
that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the
major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA's history of making
an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making
decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA's advocacy of an extreme
position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact
of natural climate drivers is inappropriate.

We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported
remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.

At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA's current or
former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern,
we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham,
or others they can recommend to you.